Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Metricyard
...
You know Jerry, when you started this post 6+ months ago, you at least tried to show some mathematics to support your theory.
Now we're data mining simple block electrical diagrams and claiming sloppy workmanship and throwing in a few imaginary problems to prove your theory. And this you consider science?
|
Sloppy is the wrong word: Optimistic.
Noone on Earth (including me) thought that Huygens would survive a twenty minute descent to the surface, so it is very difficult to interprete the data without engineering details. Do you have specifications that provide more detail? Does the Penetrometer and landing accelerometer data really reflect the landing time, or could it be a time-out buffer polling time?
I think that I can put together a pretty reasonable explaination for the temperature, the optical density, and the speed-of-sound numbers - all of which are out of wack with the predictions, but without all the details concerning how and what kind of landing signal was broadcast, and what all of the criteria were for altituded time-outs. I cannot reconciliate the mission ending time with a rapid descent.
I am asking good questions, trying to put together a plausible descent that is consistent with the data and in the process better contrain (or even eliminate) an alternative basic theory of gravity and motion.
I have posted some ideas that have proven absolutely laughable, as the details of the engineering has emerged. Not a problem - I get to be wrong, and every constructive comment is helpful.